MigL

Oh, I don't know, you've been pretty sociable on this site over the last month.

Maybe Willie could explain to the rest of us why, if Cubans are so friendly, happy and content with their lot in life, so many of them are willing to set sail on an inner tube across 50 mi of shark infested waters to get to Florida ? ( whatever America's problems, Cuba's are much more serious )

Over the centuries people have noticed that masses follow certain trajectories when acted on by other masses. Newton was kind enough to put these actions in a general form which is still quite accurate today, but there were some anomalies. Einstein realised that if we describe space-time by a generalised co-ordinate system, we can account for these trajectories by considering this co-ordinate system to be 'warped' or 'curved' by stress-energy. This theory of gravity has been so successful because it correctly accounts for the trajectory of Mercury about the Sun, or even that of light around massively gravitating objects. Again, it is the 'model', GR, which 'warps' or 'curves'. Whether or not space-time is ACTUALLY 'warped' or 'curved' is anybody's guess. But the theory does a damn good job of 'modelling' reality. ( at least far enough away from inflection points such as singularities, and the quantum realm )

Very thorough, Ophiolite. Thank you.

Did the private corporations hijack the STs, or did the states allow them to do so ? Why does the state government and school boards allow private corporations this kind of control and ability to manipulate without oversight ? Maybe state governments and school boards should be subject to some accountability also, not just students and teachers.

OK, but why no plate tectonics on Mars ? So, elaborate. ( or are you gonna make a lazy guy do some searching ? )

To be fair studiot , it has nothing to do with the size of the uncertainty, In posts #6 and #8, TakinItEasy made the assumption that at absolute zero, all motion ceases, and time stops. Well all motion does not cease. Even if it did ( almost ) for atoms and molecules within the bounds of uncertainty, electrons and quarks would still move. So this fails as an argument for time stopping.

Both of you have misunderstood the point Dimreepr and Ten oz. My post was not about winning, nor was I trying to justify anything. I simply stated that IF THERE IS JUSTIFICATION, such as if Canada were to invade the US and England tomorrow with the express purpose of killing all your men and taking all your women ( HaHa ),you would both be justified in going to war against Canada. And IF THERE IS JUSTIFICATION, you shouldn't go about it half-as*ed with a 'proportional' response, fighting limited to air attacks with unmanned vehicles and PGMs, or computer simulations of damage and reporting to disintegration chambers. These are the things that sanitize war, make it seem like a good idea, and make it last a long time. The best argument against war is that it is brutal and brings everyone down to an 'animal' level. One has a good argument that the allies were justified in going to war against Hitler's aggression in WW2. How long do you think the war would have lasted if we had only targeted his war factories, munition storage, airfields, etc, and tried to avoid casualties at all costs. It is interesting that the Russian forces, which were the most brutal towards the Reich's forces, almost defeated them singlehandedly. On the other hand, IF THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION ( like the argument could be made for Iraq ), we shouldn't start sh*t, and shouldn't be there

Found it interesting that even the best of them are only about 50% truthful. Here in Ontario we have a government legislated core curriculum and standardized testing ( in some grades ). The basics like math, science/technology, and language/communication are not subjective or open to interpretation in different parts of the country. And the testing, while stressful for the students, is needed to gauge student's progress as well as teacher/board performance. So I don't understand the objections.

BHs don't 'suck'. They have the same gravitational properties as an object of equivalent mass. A 10 solar mass BH will have things in orbit around it just as a 10 solar mass star would.

No Strange, I believe the answer is staring him in the face, but he is still trying to do energy conservation across frames.

Well while we've got you here Ophiolite... I was aware that Mars does have a molten core because it shows evidence of volcanic activity. However, Earthly volcanos show a linear motion through time, such that the volcano creates a 'crest'. On Mars they don't, a volcano will happily sit in one location, indicating that there is no plate movement. If I'm mistaken in my assessment, please correct me and elaborate. If I'm correct, why is there no plate motion over the molten core ? And if this causes a thread derailment, please split off. .

It is speculated that the post Big Bang universe, with its energy density, could have formed microscopic Black Holes, which due to their size and resultant temperature, would have evaporated already. But no tell-tale gamma ray bursts have been detected ( so far ). Or there may not have been any ! In which case, the only mechanism we know of producing Black Holes is collapsing stars. But since a spiral galaxy is an 'evolved' galaxy, it is possible for Black Holes to have formed before the galaxy became a spiral. As a matter of fact, all the extremely far, elliptic/irregular Quasars are forming galaxies where the central BH is still active.

Not a competing school of thought at all, just a misconception. As other members have told you, modern science ( which by necessity includes QM ) does not allow for such a localization of a quantum particle. Zero motion implies you know its position and momentum, an impossibility. And not because of any measuring limitations. That's just the way reality is.

So if both long range forces and properties like energy and momentum are free to migrate between our space-time and this '5th' dimension, why exactly is it needed ? Now chocolate sauce ? That's needed ! ( Christmas baking, what, you thought I ate it with a spoon ? )

My impression was that he was asking if we can use the one swing of a REVERSIBLE cyclic process to extract useable work. I thought it obvious that if work is extracted, the process can no longer be reversed.

You may want to look up deBroglie's Pilot Wave theory, jajrussel, where a wavelike property is assigned to particles to account for their non-localization.

The universe has always been expanding post Big Bang. We believe it expanded exponentially ( inflation ) in the brief instant following the Big Band, and then 'settled down' into a nice leisurely, close to linear expansion. Lately in the last several Bil yrs, the expansion seems to be accelerating again ( not as extremely as inflation, however ), indicating that whatever effect drives expansion, it has changed. This change is labelled dark energy.

Thanks Janus, maybe I should have done some 'back of an envelope' calculations before I shot off my mouth.

THAT is what you got from Janus' post ? Better re-read it.

That brief instant just after midnight. I submit my digital alarm clock as proof.

Unless you consider the heat radiated into deep space ( trivial ) that heat is still part of the system (heats up tidal waters ? ). So what's lost ? And we can't even detect gravity waves from energetic events like orbiting BH/pulsars. How many orders of magnitude less would the waves from the Moon's orbit be ? Again, trivial. ( I'm just being 'nit-picky', but then, so were you )

On that note, lets try shifting gears... There was a Star Trek episode ( original series) where two worlds had been at war for 800 yrs. the attacks on each other were computer simulated and the ( computer selected ) affected people reported to disintegration chambers as 'casualties'. War had been "sanitized' to the point of being part of everyday life. There was no need to avoid it or end it. In C. Nolan's 'The Dark Knight', Batman captures the Joker and has him hanging upside down at a building construction site. The Joker tells Batman he can never win, because the rules he lives by bind him, while he, the Joker, has no rules. The only way he can 'win' is by stooping to the Joker's level. This sentiment is previously expressed by F. Miller in book 3 of the Dark Knight graphic novel. Now I know some people don't like my pop entertainment references, but maybe this warrants discussion. Is war supposed to be messy and brutal ? Overtone is right, when was the last time the US 'won' a war ? It hasn't happened since we started televising the actual brutality of war on the evening news ( Vietnam ), so even having the largest, best equipped armed forces in the world is useless when the people at home have no stomach for what they see on TV. We have come to the point where we try to sanitize war ( long range missiles and munitions, UCAVs ), so we start wars at the drop of a hat. Would the US have gone into Iraq if it was going to be another 'Omaha Beach' ? That is why 50 yrs of détente worked between two superpowers. the retribution for a foolhardy attack would have been terrible. You don't start sh*t if you're afraid of the outcome. And that's why North Korea gets left alone. I often have a problem when people mention proportional response ( usually in the case of Israel ), because a response HAS to be worse to prevent the incident from happening in the first place. That is the meaning of 'deterrence'. Anyway, just so I don't make this a 'wall of text' post like I've accused others of doing... I consider myself a pacifist and will walk away from a fight ( have no need/use for pride ), but I will not tolerate harm to people I care about, and will defend them with whatever means at my disposal, so... If we are going to start wars for a 'justifiable' reason, should we be 'all in', and do whatever needs to be done to win, even to the point of using nukes ? And if not justifiable ( or winnable ),refrain from starting sh*t.

The Earth/Moon system doesn't lose energy or mass over time. Remember these are conserved quantities. As Janus has pointed out angular momentum is transferred, and this 'disperses' the mass/energy of the system somewhat ( trivial ), but none is lost. As for a frame where Earth and Moon can be considered stationary ? A universe rotating in the same plane as the Moon's orbit and with the same period ?

Your idea has all the appeal of string theory without the ;'elegant' math. Oh wait... That is the only appeal of string theory ! ( I joke )